Pollster.com

Lincoln's Grave Warning Realized

...a letter from President Abraham Lincoln to William F Elkins on 21 November 1864:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Eight Principles of Uncivilization

by Paul Kingsnorth and Dougald Hine


‘We must unhumanise our views a little, and become confident
As the rock and ocean that we were made from.’


  1. We live in a time of social, economic and ecological unravelling. All around us are signs that our whole way of living is already passing into history. We will face this reality honestly and learn how to live with it.

  2. We reject the faith which holds that the converging crises of our times can be reduced to a set of‘problems’ in need of technological or political ‘solutions’.

  3. We believe that the roots of these crises lie in the stories we have been telling ourselves. We intend to challenge the stories which underpin our civilisation: the myth of progress, the myth of human centrality, and the myth of our separation from ‘nature’. These myths are more dangerous for the fact that we have forgotten they are myths.

  4. We will reassert the role of story-telling as more than mere entertainment. It is through stories that we weave reality.

  5. Humans are not the point and purpose of the planet. Our art will begin with the attempt to step outside the human bubble. By careful attention, we will reengage with the non-human world.

  6. We will celebrate writing and art which is grounded in a sense of place and of time. Our literature has been dominated for too long by those who inhabit the cosmopolitan citadels.

  7. We will not lose ourselves in the elaboration of theories or ideologies. Our words will be elemental. We write with dirt under our fingernails.

  8. The end of the world as we know it is not the end of the world full stop. Together, we will find the hope beyond hope, the paths which lead to the unknown world ahead of us.



The Dark Mountain Manifesto

(excerpt)
Walking on lava

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilisation
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Those who witness extreme social collapse at first hand seldom describe any deep revelation about the truths of human existence. What they do mention, if asked, is their surprise at how easy it is to die.

The pattern of ordinary life, in which so much stays the same from one day to the next, disguises the fragility of its fabric. How many of our activities are made possible by the impression of stability that pattern gives? So long as it repeats, or varies steadily enough, we are able to plan for tomorrow as if all the things we rely on and don’t think about too carefully will still be there. When the pattern is broken, by civil war or natural disaster or the smaller-scale tragedies that tear at its fabric, many of those activities become impossible or meaningless, while simply meeting needs we once took for granted may occupy much of our lives.

What war correspondents and relief workers report is not only the fragility of the fabric, but the speed with which it can unravel. As we write this, no one can say with certainty where the unravelling of the financial and commercial fabric of our economies will end. Meanwhile, beyond the cities, unchecked industrial exploitation frays the material basis of life in many parts of the world, and pulls at the ecological systems which sustain it.

Precarious as this moment may be, however, an awareness of the fragility of what we call civilisation is nothing new.

‘Few men realise,’ wrote Joseph Conrad in 1896, ‘that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in the safety of their surroundings.’ Conrad’s writings exposed the civilisation exported by European imperialists to be little more than a comforting illusion, not only in the dark, unconquerable heart of Africa, but in the whited sepulchres of their capital cities. The inhabitants of that civilisation believed ‘blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in the power of its police and of its opinion,’ but their confidence could be maintained only by the seeming solidity of the crowd of like-minded believers surrounding them. Outside the walls, the wild remained as close to the surface as blood under skin, but the city-dweller was no longer equipped to face it directly.

The remainder of the essay can be read online: Dark Mountain manifesto.


Paul is the author of One No, Many Yeses and Real England. He was deputy editor of The Ecologist between 1999 and 2001. His first poetry collection, Kidland, is forthcoming from Salmon Poetry. His website is www.paulkingsnorth.net

Dougald writes the blog Changing the World (and other excuses for not getting a proper job). He is a former BBC journalist and has written for and edited various online and offline magazines. His website is www.dougald.co.uk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The "Eight principles of uncivilisation" are expanded in the Dark Mountain manifesto (also available as PDF or purchased as a limited-edition, hand-stitched pamphlet.

See the site for the blog and information about their upcoming festival May 28-30.

Several Energy Bulletin contributors are on their Blogroll, including John Michael Greer, Sharon Astyk, Rob Hopkins and Dmitry Orlov. Also mentioned are Wendell Berry and Ivan Illich.

George Monbiot recently wrote a column in the Guardian about Dark Mountain Project: I share their despair, but I'm not quite ready to climb the Dark Mountain.

On Common Dreams, Robert C. Koehler wrote a related piece: Dark Green.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Original article available here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our American Objectives

"Our national goals must be to rejuvenate the domestic economy; transfer the economic basis of our nation from consumptive to productive; recapitalize education and the technologies industries; achieve complete energy independence; move towards renewable energy sources;
restore public confidence in the government's ability to undertake large national infrastructure projects, and re-assert its right to set goals and policies to ensure those projects proceed smoothly; define the overarching standards for a reconstructed America including a federal review of the building and planning codes now in use, and probably the writing of new mandates that set out 21st-century standards and priorities for energy use, urban and transportation planning, and environmental design, which once put into law and accepted into general use, will be very difficult to change; commit funding for a massive 10- or 20-year program that will upgrade or replace failing components of America's infrastructure as the nation is broke (as it was in FDR's day) and this kind of spending needs to be seen as the long-term investment in our economic future that it is; restore a fair, honest, broad-based system of public contracting that will put large numbers of Americans to work on these new projects (and write the new rules in a way that ensures that the firms doing the most innovative work don't have to compete with unfair behemoth corporations like Halliburton and Lockheed for the lion's share of the funding) so that once there is a healthy, competitive construction industry that knows how to build sustainable projects—and is relying on the government to keep it in business—we will get a political constituency that will fight to ensure that the rebuilding will continue for the next several decades, regardless of what political party is in power; use the forces of globalization and information to strengthen and expand existing democratic alliances and created new ones; employ these alliances to destroy terrorist networks and establish new international security structures; lead, through our historic principles, on international cooperative efforts in spreading economic opportunity and democratic liberties, nation building, counter-prolification, and optimum environmental protection and safeguards; and cherish, honor, and protect our history and traditions of liberty and freedoms domestically particularly with respect to the Bill of Rights."

"The renewed social contract for America with its middle class and poor must:
  • Raise the minimum wage still higher and on a regular basis. It has fallen far behind increases in inflation since the 1970s, and that affects higher level wages as well.
  • Encourage living-wage programs by local governments. Governments can demand that their contractors and suppliers pay well above the minimum wage. There is substantial evidence that this does not result in an undue loss of jobs.
  • Enforce the labor laws vigilantly. Minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws are violated to a stunning degree. American workers shouldn't be forced by their employers to understate the number of hours worked or be locked in the warehouse so they can't leave on time. Workers often make only $2 and $3 an hour.
  • Unions are not seeking a free pass to organize secretly when they advocate for open check-offs on cards to approve of a union vote. They are seeking to organize without persistent and often illegal management interference. Penalties for illegally deterring such organizing are so light, it makes little sense for management not to pursue strategies to stop organizing even at the cost of prosecution.
  • Request that trading partners develop serious environmental standards and worker-protection laws. This is good for them, bringing a progressive revolution and a robust domestic market to their countries. It is good for America, which will be able to compete on a more level playing field.
  • Demand that the president, governors and mayors speak up about unconscionable executive salaries and low wages. The influence from the top cannot be underestimated. A president who looks the other way sends a strong signal to business. A president who demands responsible treatment of workers will get a response. Business does not like such attention.
  • These measures should be accompanied by serious investment in modernized infrastructure and energy alternatives, which can create millions of domestic jobs that pay good salaries. It should also be accompanied by a policy that supports a lower dollar -- contrary to Rubinomics -- in order to stimulate manufacturing exports again. Accomplishing this may require a new system of semi-fixed currencies across the globe. The unabashed high-dollar policy of the past twenty years has led to imbalances around the world that have contributed fundamentally to US overindebtedness.
  • And finally, the nation needs more balance on the part of the Federal Reserve between subduing inflation and creating jobs. Americans can live with inflation above 2 percent a year. There is no academic evidence to support a 2 percent annual target, although the Fed has made this its informal target."

The Continuing Case for The Second Bill of Rights for All American Citzens

...from Michael Lind on Salon.com on 11 January 2010 ....

The Case for Economic Rights

FDR said it and it holds 66 years later: There are benefits and opportunities every American should expect to enjoy

Three score and six years ago, the greatest president of the 20th century gave one of his greatest speeches. On Jan. 11, 1944, in a State of the Union address that deserves to be ranked with Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" and King's "I Have a Dream" speech, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for recognition of a "Second Bill of Rights." According to FDR:

"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights -- among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our nation has grown in size and stature, however -- as our industrial economy expanded -- these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness."

Roosevelt did not argue that economic rights had superseded basic, old-fashioned political and civil rights. The argument of authoritarians and totalitarians that economic rights are more important than non-economic liberty was abhorrent to him. Instead, with the examples of the fascist and communist regimes of his time in mind, he argued that the purpose of economic rights was to support and reinforce, not replace, civil and political liberties:

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. 'Necessitous men are not free men.' People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of station, race, or creed."

President Roosevelt was not promoting economic rights that were necessarily enforceable in court, but rather economic benefits and opportunities that every American should expect to enjoy by virtue of citizenship in our democratic republic. Many of the rights he identified have been secured by programs with bipartisan support. These include:

"the right to a good education" (the G.I. Bill, student loans, Pell Grants, Head Start, federal aid to K-12 schools) and

"the right of every family to a decent home" (federally subsidized home loans and tax breaks for home ownership). But even before the global economic crisis, the U.S. fell short when it came to full employment --

"the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation"

-- and a living wage --

"the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation."

Roosevelt's vision was controversial at the time and is contested today. When it comes to providing a safety net for Americans, there are three distinct paradigms, which I would describe as economic citizenship, welfare corporatism and faith-based charity.

Supporters of faith-based charity among "theoconservatives" such as Marvin Olasky argue that modern social insurance like Social Security and Medicare was a mistake. The medieval British and colonial American systems of relying on religious institutions to care for the sick and poor should have been continued and built upon, with government subsidies to "faith-based institutions."

The secular business-class right, however, has shown little interest in faith-based charity, perhaps because it is difficult for rent-seeking bankers, brokers and other private sector actors to extract huge amounts of money from tax-exempt church hospitals and church soup lines. The right's preferred alternative to the progressive vision of economic citizenship is what I call "welfare corporatism." Whereas economic citizenship views protection against sickness, unemployment and old age as entitlements of citizens in a democratic republic, welfare corporatism treats these necessities of life as commodities like groceries or appliances, to be purchased in a market by people who are thought of as consumers, not citizens.

Let's contrast ideal versions of the two approaches. In the ideal America of economic citizenship, there would be a single, universal, integrated, lifelong system of economic security including

single-payer healthcare,

Social Security, unemployment payments and

family leave

paid for by a single contributory payroll tax (which could be made progressive in various ways or reduced by combination with other revenue streams). Funding for all programs would be entirely nationalized, although states could play a role in administration. There would still be supplementary private markets in health and retirement products and services for the affluent, but most middle-class Americans would continue to rely primarily on the simple, user-friendly public system of economic security. As Steven Attewell points out, the Social Security Act of 1935 was intended not merely to provide public pensions for the elderly but to establish a framework for a comprehensive system of social insurance corresponding to President Roosevelt's "right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment." Attewell writes: "We need to go back to the original drawing board -- the Social Security Act of 1935 -- to finish the job it began and create a truly universal and comprehensive social welfare state."

In the utopia of welfare corporatism, today's public benefits -- Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and, in a few states, public family leave programs -- would be abolished and replaced by harebrained schemes dreamed up by libertarian ideologues at corporate-funded think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Tax subsidies would be funneled to insurance companies, brokers and banks. Social Security would be replaced by a bewildering miscellany of tax-favored personal savings accounts. Medicare would be replaced by a dog's breakfast of tax subsidies for purchasing health insurance and personal medical savings accounts. Unemployment insurance would give way to yet another Rube Goldberg scheme of tax-favored unemployment insurance accounts. As for family leave -- well, if you're not wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for a nanny for your child or a nurse for your parent, you're out of luck.

The strongest case for economic citizenship instead of welfare corporatism is economic. Economic citizenship is more efficient and cheaper in the long run, because the government need only meet costs, while subsidized private providers must make a profit. The Democratic and Republican supporters of welfare corporatism justify their system of massive subsidies for for-profit healthcare and retirement security with the claim that market competition will keep down prices. If only that were true. Competitive markets are probably impossible to create, in the highly regulated insurance sector and the highly concentrated financial sector that sells private retirement goods and services.

It follows that a policy of subsidizing oligopolies and monopolies, via government subsidies to consumers, in the absence of government-imposed price controls, is a recipe for cost inflation, as the providers jack up their prices, sending the consumers back to Congress to demand even more public subsidies. By its very nature, welfare corporatism funnels public resources, in the form of tax breaks, to rent-seeking, predatory firms in the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector, with ever-swelling dead-weight costs on the economy. Welfare corporatism equals corporate welfare.

Unfortunately, most progressives have failed to make the case against the libertarian myth of market competition in the provision of social insurance. All too many, including President Obama, have made the too-clever-by-half argument that the public option would keep prices down by means of market competition. In other words, the center-left has borrowed a bogus argument about competition from right-wing free-market fundamentalism in order to defend a token public program that ceased to be of any interest once Obama and the Democrats in Congress ruled that Americans with employer-provided insurance would be banned from joining the public option. When you're reduced to parroting the opposition's erroneous theories, in the process of begging for a slight modification of the opposition's pet program, you clearly don't have the nerve or the patience to play the long game in politics.

In a response to one of my earlier columns, Will Marshall wonders how I can dare to criticize the legacy of Bill Clinton, a Democrat. My reasons should be clear by now. I am not a partisan Democratic operative focused on winning the next election. I am interested only in strengthening the republic through a gradual expansion of economic citizenship in the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights. If this means criticizing Democratic presidents who expand welfare corporatism instead of economic citizenship, so be it.

As part of his opportunistic policy of triangulation between his own party and the opposition, Bill Clinton joined the Republicans in a three-pronged assault on New Deal economic citizenship. He and the Republican Congress abolished Aid to Families With Dependent Children, a flawed and unpopular means-tested program for the poor that should have been reformed as a national program rather than turned over to the states as the neo-Confederate right insisted. Instead of piecemeal expansion of single-payer healthcare, Clinton pushed a version of employer-based welfare corporatism plus subsidies that came out of the playbook of moderate Republicans like Nixon. And we now know that Clinton secretly agreed to support Newt Gingrich's drive to partly privatize Social Security, in return for dedicating the federal government's imaginary future surpluses to what was left of Social Security. In 2005, Will Marshall argued in favor of private accounts, on the grounds that they would soften up Americans for cuts in Social Security: "If today's workers start saving and investing more in stocks and bonds, the returns they earn would allow us to trim their Social Security benefits later, without reducing their overall standard of living."

While George W. Bush pushed for partial privatization of Social Security, he failed because of massive public opposition. But Bush and the Republican majority in Congress succeeded in enacting the Social Security drug benefit, a flawed but genuine expansion of economic citizenship. Clinton is the only president to have successfully supported the destruction of a New Deal entitlement, while Bush presided over the greatest expansion of the Rooseveltian entitlement system since Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare.

For his part, Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton, rejected single-payer in favor of a moderately conservative welfare corporatist approach to healthcare reform. In contrast, Obama's proposal for student loan reform, an idea discussed in the Clinton years, would move in the right direction, away from welfare corporatism and toward economic citizenship, by replacing subsidized third-party lenders with direct government provision of student loans to needy college students.

Parties are coalitions of interest groups, they are not public philosophies, and presidents, great and minor, are and have to be opportunists. In contrast, reformers only have a chance of succeeding if they stick to their basic principles and keep their eyes on the prize. Progressives should support any politician, Democrat or Republican, who expands economic citizenship to the detriment of welfare corporatism, and they should oppose any politician, Democrat or Republican, who expands welfare corporatism to the detriment of economic citizenship.

Any more questions?

Monetary Cost of Iraq War

27 June 2010

Compelling Reading

The observations and conclusions presented here are striking and alarming, presaging the likelihood of war and increasing widespread civil unrest globally; as authorities, elites, and corporations are challenged and perhaps even threatened to an extent as they have not ever before historically. Given the economic troubles being experienced around the planet and this seemingly growing sense of enlightenment, consciousness, and perhaps what will be described as radicalism, history strongly suggests a broad war with lots of death, destruction, and tragedy may be just around the corner.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19873

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

 

Posted by at No comments:

19 May 2010

Recommended Link to Utilize

I came upon this link and it appears to be as unbiased as a news link as one can find on the net.  With the massive numbers of news links and commentary out there, it is good to find one that is truly honest and impartial.


There are a number of other links included on the site and I will attempt to visit many of them in the coming weeks to determine if they are worthwhile to bookmark and refer to on occasion.  I have only visited a very tiny number of them in the past.

Here is the list:



)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Posted by at No comments:

16 April 2010

At Sea Hapless Tea Party Lunatics and Whackjobs

I witnessed the Tea Party rally in downtown Colorado Springs at Acadia Park. There was about 1000 people in the park, but many of them were students on lunch break from Palmer HS across the street, plus the regular assorted collection of townies, downtown workers, hobos, and young people from CC up the street. Lots of blather and hyperbole. The politicians speaking on the stage were not the only hucksters trying to hustle money and votes from the unenlightened mass, as several impromptu sales stands were around vending Confederate flags, stickers, buttons, and other related paraphernalia. The supporters of full grass legalization were out in full mass as well, and one could see smoking going on in the crowd, not necessarily entirely tobacco. It was a decent enough day for a rally, and the hapless media types from tv, radio, and print had their simpleton lackeys out trying to make a story out of nothing. Too bad the rain did not come three hours earlier -- that was the real story of the day, with the first real measurable rainfall (not snowfall) since at least early last autumn, about seven months ago.

All in all, a gathering of nitwits who can only complain, bellow, and whine. I have yet to hear any solutions whatsoever from these varmints: only rabble-rousing and vociferous spitting of mindless prattle. The federal and state budgets are quite clear. Either taxes need to be raised or the big programs cut. The programs that will have to get cut will have to be those for seniors like Social Security and Medicare. Medicaid and Defense are the only other real options. Given the demographic make-up of this Tea Party gathering here and likely elsewhere across the nation on THR (there were so many old balding grey haired coots along with wild-eyed middle aged zealots looking for a purpose in their lives), none of these alternatives for cuts are realistic and are minimally able to get done politically. Tax increases are just likely out, even though there is some feasibility for enactment of new taxes such as VAT, FAIR Tax, and income tax boosts. Most people cannot pay anymore with the way things are going. The wealthy elite can ante up more, but most of them do not have much more to give besides those in the ten figure and greater income bracket like sports owners, players, actors, entertainers, corporate executives and officers, and rap musicians. Those folks could give plenty more, but there really is not enough of them to make a significant dent in the area of revenue shortfall.
What has to happen is for a massive reform of the tax code. Fortune 5000 corporations need to mandated to actually pay federal income taxes instead of lobbying the system so they can work it to their advantage and shirk their duties. An indexed and progressive federal tax on corporate revenues also needs to be enacted to encourage corporations to have a minimal market share, maximize competition, open up markets for more to enter into, split apart, avoid mergers, get rid of their inner bloody pork for their VIPs, and be proper responsible legal citizens of this nation, since they are now people according to the law of the land recently ordered by our wonderful US Supreme Court.
Fat chance that will happen - even though the answer to most problems can be found in history. Back to the 50s would work, but it is politically impossible.
The unfortunate destiny of the nation is that it will go broke, declare bankruptcy or insolvency, significantly devalue the currency, and drive many more middle class and the poor into lives marked with greater hopelessness, stress, and despair. The USA is well on to the path of being a failed state, and it is only a matter of time before it eventuates and dissolves into a number of new nations.

And all the yabbering and whining by unenlightened twits who cannot see the forest for the trees is not going to stop it. The best of the ride is over: try to enjoy the downslide. It will be bad, but there are a few things to be grateful for. One just has to figure out what those are for each of us. A clue: basic, unadulterated simplicity.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Posted by at No comments:

06 April 2010

Please Help .....

I am requesting direct financial help and assistance from anyone and all. The one methods that can be used to help is a payment to me using the PayPal links on the top right side of this blog or my other blog.


I am totally out of money and will be completely on foot starting WED. Thank you in advance for your charity and generosity as I am totally unable to get any work and have no prospects or hopes at this time and for the upcoming future ......

Any and all help would be greatly appreciated, as I use about $15 per week, mostly for all gasoline with a buck or two weekly for beverages at McDs when I go there to use their free wireless internet connection.

I am also now delinquent on my storage room which is $178. Any help I can get towards that outstanding liability would be as greatly appreciated; one can make a payment towards that directly using the information from my previous post on SUN 4 APR.

I am totally out of money and will be completely on foot starting WED. Thank you in advance for your charity and generosity as I am totally unable to get any work and have no prospects or hopes at this time and for the upcoming future ......
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Posted by at No comments:

23 March 2010

Now What ? Better, But No Panacea

It only took more than 75 years, and probably longer, for at least a somewhat comprehensive national health care legislative act to get passed by Congress. The final legislation leaves much to be desired and is highly imperfect.

The nation basically had three choices on this critical matter: maintain the status quo and largely do nothing; opt for the best solution, a single payer system; or do something in between but probably not half-way to what was needed, which is what it seems we have ended up with this legislative package.

I do not foresee gloom and doom with this legislation being enacted like others do, but it is only a start in a process that will only continue to evolve and mature into something far different than what we have now. Many insurance corporations will all but disappear this decade (2011-2020) with then a small oligopoly of providers remaining that inevitably within time decrease further in numbers; and eventually all will go belly up and get swallowed by the government creating the single payer system which is about the only cost effective way to have a functioning system for everybody, particularly the massive fast growing numbers of baby boomers now just entering into their years where their health will require much greater attention and huge financial outlays to be paid for.

By 2025 this will be the reality and everyone will be anteing up about 4% of paychecks, all other compensation, and any and all investment dividend revenue to pay for this system to come. The legislation enacted is grossly inadequate and lacking in prescience to provide for the needed funding and revenue required in the near future, to say nothing of what is down the road in 20 to 30 years and beyond when the nation is made up of a citizenry that consists of 20 % octogenarians and older, with some states over one-quarter in that population demographic. All the illegal immigrants here and that will be inevitably arriving in the coming years will not be enough to provide enough financial counterweight for all the coots, geezers, grannies, and turkeys needing massive care and the funds to pay for it

And even these changes that I envision are likely to be insufficient. Although unlikely, a darker scenario may emerge where the youth and less powerful force into existence a system where the older and more infirm may just have to deal with no system they get to participate in unless they are moneyed and financially blessed. It would not be surprising to see lots of newly old boomers and Gen Xers dying slow deaths everywhere in the next two to four decades without much in the way of medical care available. Walmart, Target, and Walgreens may get heavily involved in the area of assisted suicide across the nation to relieve the country the burden of all these soon to be unproductive geezers slowly and painfully wasting away in places everywhere. Given the certain financial collapse of the US in the next decade (2011-2020), a horrific scenario like this is not out of the question.

Count me in as one of those destined for a less than desirable fate if the worst case scenario even eventuates partially. Barring a financial miracle or an instance of incredibly unforeseen fortune, I will be there. Excuse me for believing it would be better for me to go suddenly in the next several years rather than meander painfully for an indeterminate period of time in the years ahead beyond that in a state that is largely unimaginable and completely painful beyond belief.

In conclusion, the legislation enacted this week will stand much to the chagrin of those who wanted to maintain the status quo of a health care system based on class and wealth, which is at the core of most all disputes and controversies domestically in the last century. There are simply a lot of people who do not want to be mandated to share; but volunteerism and charity does not work anywhere adequately enough and is significantly unjust. The changes made this week are imperfect, but better than what many were being forced to deal with for the most part in the last generation -- unless one is wealthy, privileged, or is loftily employed in a Fortune 10000 corporation.

*****
Posted by at No comments:

08 March 2010

Stated Quite Simply !

.... from Susan S. Pastin on SUN 7 MAR on Buzzflash....


Programs such as Social Security and Medicare built the American middle class – and solutions such as health care reform, banking reform, consumer protection, and freeing our politics from the stranglehold of big money that will save us now.

Instead of tearing down our country, we ought to be building it up.

We should rebuild our manufacturing base, based on clean energy, high-speed trains, bio-medical research, and other 21st century endeavors. We should promote research and development. We should promote small business and American innovation.

We must rebuild our infrastructure – not just our roads and bridges, but our schools and homes which need to become energy-efficient. We should end our addiction to oil and gas as soon as we can, with clean solar and wind energy.

We need health care reform now. Having to stay in a bad job because you, your spouse or your kid needs medical care is a modern day form of slavery, not freedom!

We need to promote lending by small and large banks – and break up the so-called “too big to fail” banks. We need a real Consumer Financial Productions Protection Agency. We need real, not fake, reform.

The American Dream is under attack. And this is the fight of our generation. It is a fight Americans have been fighting since our Revolution – a fight to make equal opportunity a reality, not an empty slogan.

Lose this fight, and we lose our country to a bunch of over-pampered plutocrats. We lose opportunities for ourselves and our children to succeed.

Politicians too timid to fight for solutions to our serious national problems, such as some Blue Dog Democrats, do not deserve our support. And we must throw out of office politicians directly working against our general welfare – unfortunately, that includes all Congressional and Senate Republicans, who are marching in lock-step with the GOP bully boys determined to oppose any Obama program.

People move forward both as groups and as individuals. But right now the American middle class is moving backward, not forward. Over-pampered plutocrats don’t need unemployment compensation, but plenty of us in the middle class have had to rely on it just to pay the bills and help our families to survive. Wall Street bankers don’t need union protections or a jobs program – but millions of us regular Americans do.

Look around. We all know that real unemployment is above 16 percent when you count people only partially-employed. We need our banks, large and small, to lend to small businesses to create new jobs.

We need to address the needs of the majority of Americans, not the privileged few.

*****

Posted by at No comments:

11 February 2010

THR 11 FEB News Articles & Opinion

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10042/1035032-28.stm#ixzz0fDyiSTHq

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175205/tomgram%3A_steve_fraser%2C_a_tale_of_two_presidents__/#more
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)